As far as I know the .223 is used because it's a combination of power and rate of fire not because of its wounding capacity. That may be an extra
benefit .

The shell is a mixture of power and size which means magazine size and how many shots available before changing.

That may not be good for the current dialogue with gun control folks

I can't believe nobody has said this already.

I said it many, many pages ago. It has to do with the idea in Vietnam that cyclical full auto fire was necessary. They had to have lighter weight ammo
to achieve that. Then they realized the fault in their thinking but already had the ammo made and the contracts done and logistics handled so they
kept it.

5.56 is the least effective ammo that could be used. Ask our soldiers what they would prefer. 7.62 is so much more effective at actually killing your
enemies than 5.56.

Obviously 7.62mm is the more effective killer. It's simple physics that a larger, heavier bullet travelling fast is going to do more damage than a
much smaller, lighter one going just a bit faster.

However anyone who says that a 5.56 doesn't do much damage obviously hasn't seen the wounds it inflicts.

5.56 gets its bad rep from users firing it from short barrels. The SS109/M855 relies on high velocity to be effective. Anything less than a 16" barrel
cuts the effective range to less than 100m. The M4 has a 14.5" tube, meaning the effective range is around the 85m mark. Combine this with people who
don't like to admit they may have missed a target and you suddenly have a 'rubbish round'.

Strangely enough you don't tend to get these complaints from units who use weapons with 20" barrels.

Just because a bullet is larger does not make it a better killer. That completely discards things such as round construction, and the needed velocity
and energy required to make the round dump it's energy within the target.

Also 5.56 ammunition in mk318 mk262 and M855a1 all have the capability to be effective out of shorter barrels.

Personally though I very much prefer 5.56 rifles with 18-20 inch barrels, of which I own several. Like you said, the round just flat performs better
out of longer barrels.

But, this is due to some very foolish compromises made in how the round was designed.

5.45x39 for example has no trouble pushing bullets to 3000 fps + from 16.25 inch barrels. It's actually one of the most effective service rounds
available and in use with infantry. Hands down in a real situation a weapon chambered in 5.45 would be my pick. It's small, light, high velocity, and
very very potent across it's entire 500 meter range!

7.62x39 and .300 blackout aren't impressive at all to me. You're lucky to get 300 meters from them and they have an arcing trajectory which makes
proper range estimates beyond 100 meters absolutely vital.

7.62x51... Unfortunately has exactly the same poor design choices built into it as the 5.56. There are rounds that have a better design and can
frankly do a good job of matching or exceeding it's performance in much smaller packages. One example being 6.5 Grendel which can deliver slightly
lower performance from 0-750 meters and BETTER performance from there to 1000 + meters.

Why should this shock and appall you?
Because Grendel does this from an AR15! which BTW actually degrades substantially it's true capabilities through too short maximum cartridge length
because of the magazine. It's also not able to be loaded to it's actual operating pressure because of weak bolt lugs in the AR15.

You misunderstand me. I was referring to the M855 vs M80 in an effort to compare like for like. The M855A1 is a totally different beast. The M855A1
was designed specifically because of the failings of the M855/SS109 from a short barrel. In the UK we're still stuck with the SS109 which needs speed
to be effective. Luckily we use the SA80A2 which has a 20" barrel.

Much of bad image of the 5.56 comes from anecdotal evidence from the use of M855 fired from short barrels. A perfect example of this is from the book
of Black Hawk Down. One of the Delta guys makes comment on the inefficiency of the 'new green tip' round. They were using M4s. Full size M16s just
aren't seen an sexy anymore, so bullet design is paramount.

Yeah Paddy I understand the implications with green tip. Lucky for me I run mostly 20 inch barrels with 1:8 twist when I use 62 grain M855.

However it's not impossible to make a better round of the same bullet diameter and overall length that will perform quite excellently out of 16 inch
barrels. The Russian 5.45x39 does exactly that. It uses a finer bullet shape with a longer bullet that can still manage 2900+ feet per second using
less powder that's still accurate to 500 meters.

5.45 is also preferred by the Syrians over 7.62x39 and 5.56 because of it's performance and ability to do it's job in combat.

We had a very similar round in the early 70's called the 5.56 FABRL. It could have been an extremely good round and at half the weight of the current
round, much easier on the ammunition burden, and with only 39,000 peak psi easier on guns to boot.

Obviously 7.62mm is the more effective killer. It's simple physics that a larger, heavier bullet travelling fast is going to do more damage than a
much smaller, lighter one going just a bit faster.

However anyone who says that a 5.56 doesn't do much damage obviously hasn't seen the wounds it inflicts.

5.56 gets its bad rep from users firing it from short barrels. The SS109/M855 relies on high velocity to be effective. Anything less than a 16" barrel
cuts the effective range to less than 100m. The M4 has a 14.5" tube, meaning the effective range is around the 85m mark. Combine this with people who
don't like to admit they may have missed a target and you suddenly have a 'rubbish round'.

Strangely enough you don't tend to get these complaints from units who use weapons with 20" barrels.

I didn't intend to imply I thought 5.56 wouldn't do damage or anything. Obviously it is capable of killing. I also am not trying to pretend I know
more than I do, so I won't argue anything and have no problem ceding the point.

Having said that it is my understanding that the reason we use it today is basically just logistics. It is also my understanding from what I have
personally read of soldiers recounting shooting people and either having it go straight through a leg or arm with the enemy barely noticing or just
simply failing to stop them when it was the soldiers opinion a 7.62 round would have. Those particular soldiers said they would much prefer a bigger
round regardless of weight difference.

I probably said it in much too broad of statement but obviously that is a subjective topic and since I don't have personal experience with shooting or
getting shot by either round I was just deferring to their superior knowledge. I don't want to give the impression I know any of this from experience
or that I am some kind of civilian bad ass. I most certainly am not. I do have quit a bit of experience with fire arms and it is a topic that greatly
interests me but that is truly where my direct knowledge ends.

originally posted by: 00018GE
I get tired of hearing the news media talking heads saying that AR-15's are designed to kill. AR-15's and the like AND military rounds in general are
designed to wound NOT kill. Wounding an enemy soldier takes more soldiers off the battlefield than killing enemy soldiers. These kinds of weapons are
designed to wound. I don't understand why no one calls them on this more often.

That's not true having spent 15 years in thr military I can say your wrong. That was something started when m16s first came out during vietnam. Many
soldiers thought the smaller rounds only wounded. Reality is the lighter round does much more internal damage. In combat I have actually seen someone
hit in thr arm and thr round exited there neck. With a higher caliber it would have just hit the bone and continued thru him.

The round is designed at high velocity to tumble upon enteeing a body and is far more lethal than say an AK.

originally posted by: darkstar57
To support the original posting, the .223 round used in Vietnam was designed to tumble in flight, making a wound similar to a hollow point, but
illegal by geneva convention.

The round does not tumble iN flight in fact that would be useless. Rifling prevents this what does happen on striking a target thr round will start to
tumble. And yes it's a way of getting around thr use of holow points.

This effect is very velocity dependent though. This is part of why M855A1 has much higher peak pressure, and I suspect uses a powder blend designed
specifically to hit this pressure faster and hold it longer than the previous round. This and the tool steel penetrator tip has contributed to the
greatly reduced service life of the M4A1.

Going to replaceable steel feed ramps rails and et cetera like the Sig mcx uses could partially solve SOME of the issues.

As far as the designed to wound crap... The only people who believe this and spout this are people who know absolutely nothing about the actual early
history of the M16!

What I'd ordinarily suggest is that they pick up a copy of the first volume in the black rifle two volume set. It covers everything about the
development, theory, and early use of the M16 in great detail. For people like me who wanted to know more the bibliography contains everything you
need to look up huge amounts of data and individual papers using the free dtic.mil website search engine.

But since the OP isn't about to actually do research and find out the facts... Here's the cliff's notes version.

Originally the M16 as provided in limited numbers to early advisors in Vietnam used a 1:14 rifling twist rate and was coveted by everyone who had a
chance to see how insanely effective it was. At the ranges combat was happening the little round was causing horrific wounds and killing men with one
shot with a regularity neither the M14 or M1 garand / carbine could hope to achieve at ANY RANGE!

Even after the rifle switched to a 1:12 twist to make it perform reliably in the full range of operating climates it was still a very lethal weapon.

Comparatively I don't think it can be established that 7.62 could or did perform any better on a one for one basis. The difference being that while
both could and did zip right through enemy combatants, as did 7.62x39, with only minor injuries resulting...

You could carry a hell of a lot more 5.56, make followup shots much more quickly, and be a high double digit percentage more likely to score a solid
hit at any range between 0 & 300 meters!

I'll say it again and again... In order to kill or incapacitate with a gun you must first HIT THEM!

As far as civilian ownership of the AR15 is concerned, it's a very reliable fairly light and durable safe and easy to operate platform for the vast
majority of users between 12&90. It can easily and safely be operated maintained modified and serviced by users with only a manual and a very small
selection of tools.

Realistically it's as popular and prolific as it is boils down to the same reason Volkswagen beetles Honda civics and Toyota trucks have been popular.
They're affordable, easy to maintain, cheap to personalize, and readily usable with minimal practice to achieve respectable performance.

It has nothing to do with government overthrow or zombie apocalypse fantasy and certainly not with gunning down police or the public in murder sprees.
They're just affordable simple platforms with tens of thousands of readily available parts for one to adapt the platform to their needs preferences
and personalize to express their individuality while maintaining a group identity.

In other words, the AR15 is a product of consumerism not mental imbalance or malicious intent...

TL;DR: the AR15 is the iPhone fitbit Honda civic of the gun world, not a dangerous military weapon.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.